"I have history, and I understand history, so I know where we’ve been and where we are, and where we are trying to go, okay? But it’s been somewhere between 6.5 and 6.6 wins a year since 1980, which is 38 years. We’re at 7..."

jhiggi02 wrote:No to the politics thing, it's the first three though. Most everyone who has dropped their cable subscription has done so because of chord cutting, not Espn explaining why the NCAA moved events from NC.

you spelled "choad" wrong

marty j, heinz hammer, and jimmy mac have ruined the athletic programs of this school. until they are all sent out to pasture, i take my leave of this shithole and all other things bc. your pal, tre (rhymes with "seriously, fuck those 3")

CowboyEagle22 wrote:This reminds me of the music business. Big Music fought digital, but eventually lost. Now, there's not a lot of money in selling songs. They are seen as marketing expenses for the live shows and related media sales.

Yes, fun with numbers. Two decades of steady decline and one year of no decline means "Best year in decades!"

You're wrong. The royalties paid to artists by streaming services have been increasing for more than just one year. Spotify has doubled their number of paid subscriptions from 25 million in 2015 to 50 million this past March. The sum of royalties paid out will only increase once YouTube is forced to pay its fair share.

"I have history, and I understand history, so I know where we’ve been and where we are, and where we are trying to go, okay? But it’s been somewhere between 6.5 and 6.6 wins a year since 1980, which is 38 years. We’re at 7..."

CowboyEagle22 wrote:This reminds me of the music business. Big Music fought digital, but eventually lost. Now, there's not a lot of money in selling songs. They are seen as marketing expenses for the live shows and related media sales.

Yes, fun with numbers. Two decades of steady decline and one year of no decline means "Best year in decades!"

You're wrong. The royalties paid to artists by streaming services have been increasing for more than just one year. Spotify has doubled their number of paid subscriptions from 25 million in 2015 to 50 million this past March. The sum of royalties paid out will only increase once YouTube is forced to pay its fair share.

twballgame9 wrote:That's advertising dollars. He's talking about royalties to artists whose shit gets uploaded to youtube, not people who use youtube as the medium for original programming

and there are two forms of youtube videos for music - the legal and royalty paid versions and the illegal uploads where people add lyrics or their own supergay videos to the background. or blue pill and red pill respectively

marty j, heinz hammer, and jimmy mac have ruined the athletic programs of this school. until they are all sent out to pasture, i take my leave of this shithole and all other things bc. your pal, tre (rhymes with "seriously, fuck those 3")

flyingelvii wrote:Bad example but they do play royalites out to the artists. Per the first article I clicked on, this does not extend to songwriters. I can't speak to how well they do it, but they do it.

I think that is for the (a) validly loaded music videos (think Vevo) and (b) for their new music streaming subscriber-based service.

Here's what I don't understand... how is ESPN likely to be fined because the LB from UCLA cursed on air, but Facebook can broadcast without recourse a dad killing his 11-month old baby. I know Facebook, YouTube, etc. have used tens of millions of their billions to lobby against FCC regulation. But, with an anti-Hollywood-type in the White House... and with each growing outrageous video uploaded... you have to wonder if that worm starts to turn.

DavidGordonsFoot wrote:You're wrong. The royalties paid to artists by streaming services have been increasing for more than just one year. Spotify has doubled their number of paid subscriptions from 25 million in 2015 to 50 million this past March. The sum of royalties paid out will only increase once YouTube is forced to pay its fair share.

Spotify has yet to figure out how to make money so we'll see how that ends. Regardless, streaming is not going to make up for the collapse of CD sales.

We're very far astray, so let's get back on track. Bundling works until it is overwhelmed by free riders. That happened with music. It is happening with cable TV. That does not mean music and TV go away. It is not a binary world. It just means the boom times are over. ESPN will have to turn into a product people will choose to buy, rather than a product people are forced to buy.

flyingelvii wrote:Bad example but they do play royalites out to the artists. Per the first article I clicked on, this does not extend to songwriters. I can't speak to how well they do it, but they do it.

I think that is for the (a) validly loaded music videos (think Vevo) and (b) for their new music streaming subscriber-based service.

Here's what I don't understand... how is ESPN likely to be fined because the LB from UCLA cursed on air, but Facebook can broadcast without recourse a dad killing his 11-month old baby. I know Facebook, YouTube, etc. have used tens of millions of their billions to lobby against FCC regulation. But, with an anti-Hollywood-type in the White House... and with each growing outrageous video uploaded... you have to wonder if that worm starts to turn.

Because the FCC is a government body and is several years behind functional technology.

The ESPN-owned conference channel recently secured its first carriage agreements with digital video providers, guaranteeing that the channel will be available to consumers when it launches in August 2019. The deals mark an important first step that comes as critics question the network’s viability in such a volatile media marketplace. ESPN would not identify the providers who agreed to a deal, saying it is with providers whose carriage deals run beyond 2019.

So far, PlayStation Vue, DirecTV Now, Sling TV, YouTube TV and Hulu have deals to carry ESPN programming. It’s not known which ones also will take the ACC Network, though it should be noted that ESPN’s parent, Disney, owns 30 percent of Hulu.

The ACC Network was part of a larger package of Disney-owned channels sold to some of these digital video providers. It’s not known how much ESPN is charging for the ACC Network, but it’s expected to be lower than the rates for the SEC Network (72 cents per subscriber per month, according to Kagan) or BTN (43 cents, according to Kagan). These early distribution deals are important for ESPN because they will exert pressure on larger distributors to cut similar deals or risk losing subscribers who want to watch ACC sports.

SBJ media writer John Ourand speaks with Executive Editor Abe Madkour and senior writer Bill King about his reporting of the ESPN story.

Whether bigger distributors push back on the ACC Network in an environment where pay-TV channels have been losing subscribers remains to be seen, but one of the first tests will come this fall when ESPN renegotiates its affiliate deal with cable operator Altice USA, formerly Cablevision. Altice USA primarily serves areas around New York City, and it is the one major distributor that doesn’t carry the SEC Network, another ESPN-owned conference channel that launched in 2014.

Between now and the ACC Network’s planned launch in 2019, ESPN also has affiliate deals coming up with Verizon Fios (at the end of 2018), Charter (mid-2019) and AT&T (late 2019), sources said.

“We’ve yet to really get into the meat of distribution conversations because it is a couple years away,” said Burke Magnus, ESPN’s executive vice president of programming and scheduling. “We feel every bit as optimistic as we did when we announced it.”

Magnus said negotiations have been helped by the ACC’s on-field successes, which include the two most recent national championships in football (Clemson) and college basketball (North Carolina).

The ACC also touts its massive footprint, which ranges along the Eastern Seaboard from Miami to Boston, accounting for more than 40 percent of the nation’s households.

Still, the ACC has prepared its stakeholders for tough distribution battles, especially in this climate.

The ACC’s presidents were joyous at the news last summer that ESPN was fully committed to an ACC Network, but at the same meeting they were dealt a word of caution. There will be skeptics about the launch of a linear channel, said Commissioner John Swofford and the league’s media consultant, Wasserman’s Dean Jordan.

As recently as last month, veteran media analysts like Neal Pilson and James Andrew Miller said ESPN’s round of about 100 layoffs should be reason for the network to re-evaluate an ACC Network. In fact, the layoffs prompted a May 3 conversation between Swofford and ESPN President John Skipper.

Later that day, Swofford wrote to his presidents and athletic directors with this message: Tune out the critics, the layoffs don’t affect us, our plans for a network are “full-steam ahead.”

That emboldened ACC athletic directors to believe that the network could be successful enough to close the financial gap between their conference and the power five’s richest leagues, the SEC and Big Ten.

At a meeting with his board of directors last February, Florida State AD Stan Wilcox said a new network could deliver as much new revenue as the SEC Network did in 2014 — about $7.5 million per school. The SEC Network staged the most successful launch in cable TV history with more than 60 million homes and delivered a profit of about $210 million in its first year. The SEC, like the ACC, shares all network profits 50-50 with ESPN. While such lofty expectations might seem a little over the top, other ACC ADs said they were going on the guidance they received from ESPN. “We’re not pulling these numbers out of thin air,” one ACC AD said. “This is what we’re being told.”

With ESPN’s ability to grow revenue deeply mitigated against the tide of declining subscribers, a new product like the ACC Network represents one of the ways ESPN can develop new profits.

If the ACC Network launches like the SEC, that could result in a $100 million profit for ESPN, which explains why the media giant is throwing its weight behind an ACC linear channel at a time when it might seem counterintuitive. The ACC also represents the only conference where ESPN owns all the rights, from TV to digital to marketing, another reason why the effort has ESPN’s full backing. ESPN owns most of those same rights with the SEC, but CBS also owns a selection of games.

Whether the ACC Network can replicate that kind of record launch like the SEC remains to be seen, but ACC officials are repeating the same mantra: “We’re very optimistic.”

“The advantage the ACC has over most, if not all, conferences is they couple high-quality football with the highest quality men’s and women’s basketball,” Magnus said. “It’s pretty formidable.”

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... -shufflingRealignment appears to be in sleep mode. For now. But the potential for realignment -- and the strategy for when it surfaces again -- never completely leaves the radar of college sports' power brokers. That's why they're thinking about 2023.

Why 2023? It starts with expiring TV contracts. The ACC and SEC both have long-term media grant-of-rights agreements, running through 2035-36 and 2033-34, respectively. But the other three Power 5 conferences have agreements ending roughly around the same time (the SEC's Tier 1 deal with CBS runs through 2023-24). The Big Ten last summer opted for a shorter agreement with Fox and ESPN, which runs through 2022-23. The Pac-12 deal expires after the 2023-24 sports year, and the Big 12's ends the following year.

flyingelvii wrote:So we have roughly three or so years to stop sucking in basketball and being mediocre in football?

"I have history, and I understand history, so I know where we’ve been and where we are, and where we are trying to go, okay? But it’s been somewhere between 6.5 and 6.6 wins a year since 1980, which is 38 years. We’re at 7..."

As part of the new multi-year agreement, Optimum will continue to provide its customers widespread access to WABC, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, ESPN Deportes, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN Bases Loaded, ESPN3 and Freeform, as well as make available additional multiplatform, digital and expanded on-demand content from The Walt Disney Company. Optimum will add ESPN’s SEC Network in late 2018 and launch ACC Network (in place of another ESPN network) in August 2019. The companies also expect to collaborate on ESPN’s direct-to-consumer product, which is slated to launch in early 2018, and have agreed to leverage Altice USA’s data analytics platform.

As part of the new multi-year agreement, Optimum will continue to provide its customers widespread access to WABC, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, ESPN Deportes, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN Bases Loaded, ESPN3 and Freeform, as well as make available additional multiplatform, digital and expanded on-demand content from The Walt Disney Company. Optimum will add ESPN’s SEC Network in late 2018 and launch ACC Network (in place of another ESPN network) in August 2019. The companies also expect to collaborate on ESPN’s direct-to-consumer product, which is slated to launch in early 2018, and have agreed to leverage Altice USA’s data analytics platform.

claver2010 wrote:amazing this program has survived with all the increased travel costs

UConn will surpass BC any day now.

"I have history, and I understand history, so I know where we’ve been and where we are, and where we are trying to go, okay? But it’s been somewhere between 6.5 and 6.6 wins a year since 1980, which is 38 years. We’re at 7..."

WIth the way Governor Malloy is running that state in a few years the only people who will live in Connecticut will be dyke basketball groupies and Pequot casino owners and their employees. Fucking ESPN is going out of business and GE Capital is gone. What the fuck is left? Ray Dalio and few hedgies between Westport and Cos Cob sucking their own cocks and plotting a move down to Florida.

You’re not too fucking bright are you there, Jebbie Ivy. I am assuming you went to the Jebbie version of Cornell based on that stupid ass reply. I have no use for the Orangutang in Chief, just as I had no use for the Urkell-look-alike who previously held the office. I hate the Democrats because they generally do what they say they are going to do—crush the economy and wipe their asses with the Constitution. I hate the Republicans because they never do any of the things they say they are going to do—oh, they might nibble around the edges—I like Scott Pruitt and the rolling back Barry Soweto’s EOs and a tax cut is always welcome, but the failure to do anything about entitlements and start eliminating useless agencies like Education leaves me without a party. I am now just George Carlin—albeit from the right—hating the world and reveling in its stupidity.

Charlie Breaknuts wrote:You’re not too fucking bright are you there, Jebbie Ivy. I am assuming you went to the Jebbie version of Cornell based on that stupid ass reply. I have no use for the Orangutang in Chief, just as I had no use for the Urkell-look-alike who previously held the office. I hate the Democrats because they generally do what they say they are going to do—crush the economy and wipe their asses with the Constitution. I hate the Republicans because they never do any of the things they say they are going to do—oh, they might nibble around the edges—I like Scott Pruitt and the rolling back Barry Soweto’s EOs and a tax cut is always welcome, but the failure to do anything about entitlements and start eliminating useless agencies like Education leaves me without a party. I am now just George Carlin—albeit from the right—hating the world and reveling in its stupidity.

+10 as usual. BTW don't get your hopes up. There is no way BB goes to the Giants.